Cover not available
Part of
Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 275–304

Lexical blending in terms of cognitive modeling

ORCID logo | University of La Rioja

This corpus-based proposal provides a fine-grained study of lexical blending in the English language in terms of cognitive modeling. Blending as a word-formation process has gained growing popularity in recent years either to fill certain lexical/conceptual gaps or simply to endow language with creativity. Blended words are defined as combinations of two or more lexemes, one of which at least has been clipped (Bauer, 2003; Plag, 2003). Researchers of different persuasions have addressed topics like the definition of blends, their status as part of prosodic morphology, their scaffolding, the recognizability of the source words making them up, their degree of entrenchment, their lack of morphological analyzability, their classification, and the meaning each of the source words contributes to the resulting blend (Adams, 1973; Algeo, 1977; Bauer, 2003; Kemmer, 2003; Plag, 2003). Our corpus of analysis has been retrieved from the online Cambridge Dictionary, consists of 715 lexical items, and covers a five-year time span, from 2016 to 2020. The analysis of our data reveals that the most productive word-formation process is compounding, followed by blending, which accounts for 27.83% of our data (199 coinages). We provide evidence of the regularity of blended words and of their principled nature by drawing on the latest developments in cognitive modeling (Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2017; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2020; Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera, 2014). In this connection, we offer an in-depth study of parameterization (both metonymic and non-metonymic), generalization, contrast, resemblance, strengthening, expansion, and reduction as cognitive operations that play a fundamental role in the creation and construal of blended words.

Keywords: blended words, cognitive modeling, parameterization, generalization, contrast, resemblance, strengthening, expansion, reduction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology and data collection
  • 3.Word-formation processes in the creation of recent English coinages
  • 4.Making sense of blends: The semantic links between the source words of blended words
  • 5.A thumbnail sketch of the notion of cognitive operation
  • 6.Shedding light on blending in terms of cognitive modeling
    • 6.1Morphosyntactic patterns of blends
    • 6.2Parameterization and the creation of new members within existing categories
    • 6.3Drawing the speakers’ attention by means of contrast
    • 6.4Expansion and reduction, conceptual complexity, and the thought-provoking nature of blends
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.11pen
References
Adams, V.
(1973) An introduction to Modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Algeo, J.
(1977) Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech, 52(1/2), 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Fifty years among the new words: A dictionary of neologisms, 1941 – 1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R.
(2010) Cognitive Psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Arcodia, G. F., & Montermini, F.
(2012) Are reduced compounds compounds? Morphological and prosodic properties of reduced compounds in Russian and Mandarin Chinese. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. J. R. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-Disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 93–113). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S., & Plag, I.
(2013) The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 357–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balteiro, I.
(2013) Blending in English charactoons. English Studies, 94(8), 883–907. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balteiro, I., & Bauer, L.
(Eds.) (2019a) Blending in English. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b) Introduction. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14. [URL]. DOI logo
Barrena Jurado, A.
(2019) A study on the ‘wordgasm’: The nature of blends’ splinters. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, O.
(2006) Blend. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics vol. 2 (pp. 66–70, 2nd ed). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Blends: Core and periphery. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. J. R. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 11–22). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Beliaeva, N., & Tarasova, E.
(2019) Recalibrating productivity: Factors involved. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation, 3(1), 44–80(37). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliaeva, N.
(2014) A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure, 7(1), 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Blends at the intersection of addition and subtraction: Evidence from processing. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 23–45.Google Scholar
(2019) Blending creativity and productivity: On the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Blending in morphology. In R. Lieber (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2008) On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje, 9(1/2), 171–194.Google Scholar
Chung, K. S.
(2009) Putting blends in their place. Presentation at the Universals and Typology in Word-formation Conference. P. J. Šafáric University in Košice and the Slovak Association for the Study of English. Košice, Slovakia, 16–18 August 2009. [URL]
Correia Saavedra, D.
(2014) Automatically identifying blend splinters that are morpheme candidates. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(1), 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
(2010) Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
(2000) Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In U. Doleschal, & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp. 1–10). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2006) Cognitive determinants of subtractive word-formation processes: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics, 17(4), 535–558.Google Scholar
(2012) Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. J. R. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 145–167). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S.
(2003) Schemas and lexical blends. In H. C. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: From Case Grammar to Cognitive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (pp. 69–97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1998) Shapes, holics and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech, 73(1), 3–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Blendalicious. In J. Munat (Ed.), Lexical creativity, texts, and contexts (pp. 115–133). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Rúa, P.
(2012) Beyond all reasonable transgression: Lexical blending in alternative music. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. J. R. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 23–34). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
(1969) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C.H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E.
(2019) A corpus-based study of new English blends. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14 2020 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L.
(2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 161–188). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Peña, M. S.
(2022) El papel de las operaciones cognitivas metonímicas en la interpretación de las formas truncadas en lengua inglesa. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación, XXVII, 117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41–73). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A., & Xydopoulos, G. J.
(2012) Blend formation in modern Greek. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. J. R. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 35–50). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renner, V.
(2015) Lexical blending as wordplay. In A. Zirker, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Wordplay and metalinguistic/metadiscursive reflection: Authors, contexts, techniques, and meta-reflection (pp. 119–133). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. R.
(Eds.) (2012) Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2020) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S.
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, S. T.
(2019) Improving on observational blends research: Regression modeling in the study of experimentally-elicited blends. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar